On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 01:04:12AM +0200, Stasinos Konstantopoulos wrote:
> I do have strict_threads set, and I think it's a good thing to have it
> so, but I would also like to be able to manually, explicitly add the
> odd message to a thread if I need to.
The following solution is kind of a hac
Stasinos Konstantopoulos [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Op za. 25 sep 1999 21:01:11 zei Jan Peter Hecking:
> > On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 06:46:39PM +0200, Stasinos Konstantopoulos wrote:
> > > When I receive emails from people who use %$#@& outlook there is no
> > > In-Reply-To field even though they
Op za. 25 sep 1999 21:01:11 zei Jan Peter Hecking:
> On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 06:46:39PM +0200, Stasinos Konstantopoulos wrote:
> > When I receive emails from people who use %$#@& outlook there is no
> > In-Reply-To field even though they have replied to me rather than
> > compose a new mail (the
On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 06:46:39PM +0200, Stasinos Konstantopoulos wrote:
> When I receive emails from people who use %$#@& outlook there is no
> In-Reply-To field even though they have replied to me rather than
> compose a new mail (the subject is indeed Re: ).
>
> Having failed to persuade them
Hi,
When I receive emails from people who use %$#@& outlook there is no
In-Reply-To field even though they have replied to me rather than
compose a new mail (the subject is indeed Re: ).
Having failed to persuade them to use a real MUA, I was wondering if
the following exists in mutt: it would s
